Is Microsoft a Patent Troll?

What is a patent troll?

  1. An entity that misuses patents as a business strategy by positioning itself in a way to collect patent licensing revenue by doing just enough research to prove it had the idea first, or by purchasing patents for such purpose.
  2. A small green man hiding under a bridge demanding payment for passage as first depicted in "The Patents Video" in 1994.

As much as I enjoy the imagery of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) CEO Steve Ballmer lurking below the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge near Redmond, Washington to pounce on unsuspecting passersby, I think the first definition is a more appropriate description of the company's recent activities.

Of course, the company disagrees with that characterization. Microsoft Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez has defended the recent slew of suits against Google (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) Android in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Gutierrez compares the current climate to historical contexts, saying, "There is a period of unrest and a period of readjustment," following the advent of any disruptive technology.

Most industry watchers, myself included, consider the current web of software-related patent suits a problem -- a roughly $83-billion-per-year problem. Rather, Gutierrez actually considers licensing the solution, and companies like Google "standing on the shoulders" of companies like Microsoft the problem.

The interviewer even asks Gutierrez about dubious patents, such as one in its case against Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS  ) related to an indicator that a website is loading, and Gutierrez points to user experience and how numerous features contribute to the whole, while the courts will ultimately make the final call.

Microsoft has also been on the receiving end, and Gutierrez does acknowledge that non-practicing entities, or NPEs, abuse the current system. He mentions that there is currently a debate beginning over whether or not NPEs like InterDigital (Nasdaq: IDCC  ) and Rambus (Nasdaq: RMBS  ) should even be entitled to obtain injunctions.

Gutierrez's stance is unsurprising, as his job includes leading Microsoft's worldwide intellectual property and licensing group. Regardless of how you define "patent troll," Mr. Softy's onslaught of Android suits falls within the realm in some form or fashion. No one can argue that Microsoft is a non-practicing entity, but I'll argue that buying patents to attack competitors still makes you a patent troll.

Add Microsoft to your Watchlist to see if it continues its patent trolling ways. Get access to this free report on the latest raging revolution in smartphones and how you can profit from it.

Fool contributor Evan Niu holds no position in any company mentioned. Click here to see his holdings and a short bio. The Motley Fool owns shares of Microsoft and Google. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Microsoft, InterDigital, and Google, as well as creating a bull call spread position in Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 01, 2011, at 4:01 PM, drbldr wrote:

    Anyone that uses this term, Patent Troll, in such a negative way must either be in a position that they want to use someone else's idea for free, or have no understanding of the system and how it works. If you invent something, protect it with a patent and sell it to a company that enforces the rights you provided with patent protection, should the buyer of this patent have any less right to collect royalties than you did? Should the sale of that patent provide other, non-interested parties the ability to use it freely? If you answer yes to either of these questions, then I don't think you have any understanding of how common sense applies to patent protection. Again, this article sounds like the work of a disgruntled company that's being forced to pay for, rather than steal, someone else's idea. Without these protections, the incentive to continually invent and create new ideas goes away.

  • Report this Comment On November 01, 2011, at 4:54 PM, lakawak wrote:

    No more so than Apple preventing the Samsung Galaxy Tab from being released in foreign markets.

  • Report this Comment On November 02, 2011, at 12:25 AM, techy46 wrote:

    What is a patent troll? Apple? Steve Jobs, Good artists copy, great artists steal?

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    Good comments all! What the author (like Google) seem to want is a world where stuff other companies create is free and stuff their own company makes is revenue producing. Open source is to software what free advertizing would be on search results. Would Google allow other companies/people to use its search infrastructure to incorporate "open source" (free) advertizing?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1581558, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/30/2014 11:00:27 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement